Post Number: 679
|Posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 10:44 am: |
I think the Rome march was the biggest with Madrid and London joint second. For Rome, Italian police figures say 1,000,000, march organisers say 3,000,000. For Madrid, police figures say 660,000, march organisers say 2,000,000. For London, police figures say 750,000, march organisers say 2,000,000.
Post Number: 20
|Posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 - 3:56 am: |
i didnt follow the numbers but i think one newscaster said that the madrid protest was the biggest in europe, followed by the italians.
i dont want war but i didnt protest. altho i did protest during daddy bush's administration. i spent 3 days camped out across frome the white house. good times.
Absinthe maketh the heart grow fonder
Post Number: 676
|Posted on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 12:26 pm: |
Haven't seen any coverage of USA protests over here. Even coverage of our own march has been limited. The BBC told there reporters not to give much coverage to 'ant-war extremists' (whatever the fuck an 'anti-war extremist' is supposed to be?) The fact that over 3% of the population (1.5 to 2 million people on a single march) of the country assembled and marched through the capital ought to have been considered as a very significant event. There was coverage but not nearly as much as was warranted. I've been on marches before but this one was just an amazing experience and no violence whatsoever. Blair is going to pay for his actions with his job if he doesn't sit up and listen to the people he is supposed to represent.
Unfortunately there were no naked women anywhere to be seen on the London march or if there were then I wasn't lucky enough to see them.
And what about the Italians, 3 to 3.5 million people protesting in Rome. Well done.
|angry psycho (Angryp)
Post Number: 48
|Posted on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 11:17 am: |
The coverage here in the NYC area focused on:
1) The high expense to the city in police overtime ($5 mil)
2) How inconveninced New Yorkers were by the protests ("All I wanted to do was go out grocery shopping on my day off!" one yuppie scum wailed on the news).
3) That some cops were injured (while trying to prevent people from reaching the protest)
4) That protestors turned violent when they were turned back (many shots of protestors attacking mounted police, breaking through barricades and then stomping on the NYPD logos).
|Absinthe Queen of Reviews (Head_prosthesis)
Post Number: 1664
|Posted on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 11:07 am: |
I'd like to see more naked protests.
That's right. Let's have more wars,
all the time. If it promotes extended
nudity into public sectors WAR is a GOOD
750 nude women in the local park, a case
of beer and a rain coat. Ah, that's heaven.
GOD likes War,
America makes War,
GOD Loves America.
Post Number: 837
|Posted on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 10:58 am: |
And you are surprised by this?
I live in San Francisco (or next to it) and am therefore used to being the gay commie stepchild.
The media is a big government ass licker. Unfortunately the lefty media can be just as bad in the opposite direction.
k a l l i s t i
Post Number: 87
|Posted on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 10:08 am: |
what do you make of it?
plenty of attention, but kinda strange.
1. more time spent on european protests than u.s.
2. little to no mention of protests other than new york (brief mention of todays in san fran), especially little mention of protests in middle america.
3. additional coverage of relatively small PRO bush demonstrations in smaller american cities like kansas city and denver.
whatever the intent the effect is:
them wacko europeans were gettin all anti-american, and some of them damn gay commie big city folks in new york city and san franciso were joinin' in.